pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:News/20080107
PvXwiki was in news http://guildwars.com/community/news/default.php check 21 June 2007. If you're looking for a new and creative build, you might want to visit PvX, a resource containing nothing but sweet, sweet builds. The database includes both PvE and PvP builds, and has ambitious plans to improve the structure. One of the currently featured builds is an Build:A/W Shadow Prison Assassin. Appropriateness? While I do consider it important to be recognised as a fansite (and ignoring whatever disagreement is happening admin-side), is it really appropriate to plaster this as breaking news on the main page? "ArenaNet ignores PvXwiki" is not exactly the sort of public relations statement that would benefit the community and the potential userbase. I don't think many people (if anyone) knew that you had been emailing ANET to obtain recognition, so the news doesn't make sense to me at least. That's just my opinion, however. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue) 13:04, 7 January 2008 (EST) : Hm yeah good point. I was thinking about it as well. But from what I feel it seems like ArenaNet does not want to see any GW Builds here - there for ignoring us and not adding to official fun site roster. It is backed up by strongly anti build policy on the official Wiki. The News on guildwars.com shows their do know about us - but do not add us to the fan site list. : Not sure how it will effect our user database - but I think community needs to know that all hard work that goes into pvxwiki is not really recognized by anet. gcardinal 15:07, 7 January 2008 (EST) ::Has anyone else tried to contact ArenaNet to promote awareness of the site? The anti-build policy on Guild Wars Wiki is understandable, but that (in theory, at least) should not be applicable to Guild Wars fansites as a whole. That ArenaNet hasn't acknowledged PvXwiki on its fansite list doesn't necessarily mean that they are ignoring us. I think that this news announcement is premature and not good for our public relations. I think it would be better if we moved this elsewhere and try to get other members of the wiki community to petition ArenaNet through email to get this site ratified. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue) 15:12, 7 January 2008 (EST) if you remember the GW:EoTN edition of PC gamer you would realize that a-net isnt very interested in character builds at all..lol... im not sure if this has any relation except for the fact that they might be pushing against any type of meta-game. [[User:Beast194|'''Beast]][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (EST) another thing that might be a clue is the Izzy issue, if it could be called that, he seems to want to nerf all popular builds if you havent noticed, again it might be them pushing for a less meta GW. '[[User:Beast194|'Beast']][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (EST) :::I would ignore you too if i were Anet... You published sin casters. Nuff said :) Chris 21:31, 7 January 2008 (EST) ::lawlz, but thats not the issue. '[[User:Beast194|'Beast']][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (EST) Just as a note, Guildwiki isnt on Anet's list either so it might be that they dont recognise wikis as fansites, or that because this is not regulated in a way that a-net would like (prohibiting racial things, swearing, etc.) it might not want to associate itself with us. --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(''talk)]] 22:02, 7 January 2008 (EST) :Although GuildWiki cant be on there cuz they have gold-selling ads, which area against their terms of support. Anyways, we dont need Anet to support our work. All of Guild Wars knows and respects our work, and I think thats enough. --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(talk)]] 22:05, 7 January 2008 (EST) ::...support our work. All of Guild Wars knows.. ::So far so good. ::...and respects our work... ::HA! --71.229 22:09, 7 January 2008 (EST) :::Meh, so there are those pve wierdo warriors in RA who call u "noob wikiers" or something like that. Screw them. --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(talk)]] 22:11, 7 January 2008 (EST) ::::And anyone in a guild that considers themselves good, whether they are or not. And anyone who HAs and thinks they're good. And anyone who TAs and thinks they're good. And anyone who gets raped in RA because they Frenzy/Healsigged just in time to catch a BoS to the face. --71.229 22:13, 7 January 2008 (EST) yea its the russians fault. heh jk. [[User:Beast194|'''Beast]][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (EST) :No, we beat the russians (or they beat themselves). Now we gotta beat the Iranians, but we just dont know it yet... --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(''talk)]] 22:09, 7 January 2008 (EST) we gotta beat izzy first :P [[User:Beast194|'''Beast]][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (EST) This is probably because they like most of the community consider our other-pve builds to be an excellent summary of our site, and why this site sucks and should never be used. Idiots on guru threads compound the matter. 11:51, 9 January 2008 (EST) :Well, I was suprised too. During my ban, I was bored so searched the Guild Wars list for sites they /approve, and PvX wasn't on it... Despite the fact that PvX probably is the source of the biggest, best, and most ingenious builds for Guild Wars. Gamependium, which is basically a soft PvX that has no rating system and where you submit crappy builds, is on there though. /sighPvXdeservestobeonthelistdespitewhatArenaNetthinks. --20pxGuildof 17:30, 9 January 2008 (EST) I think its newsworthy both, from a site perspective and a community perspective. Anet not giving even a terse explanation is not very community-like. As far as why? ...Can't be traffic; they link to many sites which would draw traffic away from theirs...can't be gold ads; Gamependium has gold ads, buy GW char ads, and download GW cheats right on the main page as well as a build voting system ("Most Favorited Builds" :) Competition? They did make their own wiki which obviously comptetes with Guildwiki (I don't know why they bothered...day late and many dollars short) and PvXwiki is probably lumped with Guildwiki. Guildwiki/PvXwiki are well-maintained, current, and very useful sites. The only other more feasible thing I can think of is that they deliberately leave things "for the community to figure out" and this isn't quite what they had in mind for they may see it as something which does not add longevity to the game but rather reduces replayability. --Rolo 19:40, 9 January 2008 (EST) Getting wikis listed Since the majority here seems not to know this, be aware that guildwiki was listed as a fansite temporarily (before guild wars wiki came around), however from the first attempt till finally getting there it took a loong time (and I guess many emails to ANet). --Xeeron 11:55, 10 January 2008 (EST) Does ArenaNet have something against PvX? It's a serious question. On my userpage, I have a screenshot of an attempted cross site scripting (XSS) attack from wiki.guildwars.com, which my browser blocked, which is an attempt from wiki.guildwars.com to change something on a page to something else. And now they're ignoring us despite the large amount of people who visit the site. There is actually a huge amount of people visiting, only a small amount actually contribute. Discuss. RustyTheMesmer 17:06, 13 January 2008 (EST) :"''There is actually a huge amount of people visiting, only a small amount actually contribute" -- PvX has a reputation and reputations generally aren't far off. The less-than-friendly atmosphere hampers contributions and hampers playing with others. GW has plenty of undesirables within the game; I can see why Anet would want to mitigate that web-wise. Or...the Punk Wars carries over to the web... --Rolo 11:11, 14 January 2008 (EST) ::Yea to be honest PvX has a terrible community and ever since the Build Master 200% rating i dont even feel that this site should be taken seriously. Having a persons vote count for 2 other peoples vote... gg. [[User:Beast194|'''Beast]][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (EST) :::BM's are here to make up for people that suck at voting on builds and recognizing a good one from a bad one. They are also smart, which many of us lack that trait. For a guess, I would say you think we have a terrible community because some of us (or all) think your builds are terrible. We're trying to remove the bad builds from our database as our reputation is already bad enough. at least from my understanding — [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] ([[User talk:Victoryisyours|''talk]]/ ) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (EST) :::I like the Build Master idea (or any system to recognise/weigh experience). But the problems aren't due to any system; they are due to a lack of compliance/enforcement of the system. Producers aren't going to waste their time. --Rolo 18:54, 15 January 2008 (EST) ::::Why would i waste my time voting if my vote doesnt count that much... [[User:Beast194|'''Beast]][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (EST) :::::: Who says your vote doesn't count that much? --Rolo 17:15, 16 January 2008 (EST) ::::: If nothing else, there's a psychological reason to vote, we would like to believe that out input matters. That said, as far as voting on builds go, a pair of votes (or one vote that counts for two) is only truly meaningful if people who disagree don't vote. Imo, by not voting ''because of the existence of BMs, you're really allowing them to have more power over the build section than they would otherwise (which you're stated opinion says you oppose). [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 22:50, 15 January 2008 (EST) :::::: That psychological buy-in only works for a very short time and will kill leadership credibility. Real buy-in/involvement lasts. --Rolo 17:15, 16 January 2008 (EST) ::::::: Oh, I'm very much aware of that, my second point about: If you don't vote than your vote really doesn't count was the main one. I was merely answering the question "Why would i waste my time voting if my vote doesn't count that much..." [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 22:20, 16 January 2008 (EST) :::::::: Oh yes, that is a completely correct and insightful point. --Rolo 10:06, 17 January 2008 (EST) i hope so. i hate this website (because of the arrogance and incredible prejudice of seemingly MOST of it's members. 75.37.107.216 22:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT) :Do you need some cheese for that whine? Sheesh... No offense, but having anon whiners annoys me with such passion. -- *[[user talk:Guild of Deals|'Wah']] Wah!* 22:32, 23 July 2008 (EDT) Uhhmmm Am I the only one that thinks we are getting ignored because of the general Anet bashing and hate that goes on this site? I mean really, its not like they cant read those things. Also seeing as how we end up driving new users away with epic elitism, no matter how dumb they are, our community doesnt really expand much seeing as the few that do get through the initial build bashing attitude of the wiki generally stop posting builds.--[[User:Shadowsin|'Shadow'sin]] 00:06, 17 January 2008 (EST) :If I'm very mistaken about your meaning, I agree. If you really want to get into the fansite list, and the reason above is right, I think the always-voters should test and see others' opinion before vetting a 0, 1 or 2.-- Caspian08:18, 17 January 2008 (EST) ::/nod ::Except, "no matter how dumb they are" demonstrates the depth and oversight of the problem. The bashing isn't limited to Anet. gw:GuildWiki:Assume good faith turned into "Assume 5700p1d n00b", etc. Subsequently, PvXwiki:Real Vetting and PvXwiki:Editing Builds turned into "What this one PvX guy thinks". '' That's what I meant by commenting on the psychological buy-in mentioned above. --Rolo 10:06, 17 January 2008 (EST) :::Which is why votes dont matter anymore, a build can be good but never be voted good, and with the BM's it makes the average vote even more useless. '[[User:Beast194|'Beast']][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (EST) :::oh and conversely a bad build can be rated high rather easily. '[[User:Beast194|'Beast']][[User_talk:Beast194|194']](talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (EST) ::::It's not an either-or though: weighting one type of vote heavier does not make the remainder ''useless. I think the BM program is such a good idea that I think it should be expanded and be the core of the voting structure rather than peripheral to it, particularly since it recognises that admins administer the site not the builds, which isn't what's been happening in practise. (Again, the policies are fine, just not being adhered to...which means the BM program may only turn into a popularity contest.) ::::As for the now, you have to sift through the build's history/revisions, read the discussion page, and read the ratings (to include removed ratings)--which you should do regardless--and ignore the number to glean observed performance over someone's opinion based on delusions of 1337n355. --Rolo 11:37, 18 January 2008 (EST) :::::I think we should cull this discussion and move it to the relevant talk page. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue/ 21:33, 18 January 2008 (EST) Umm, i just checked, pvx is on there.--[[User:Fire Tock|'Phail']] [[User talk:Fire Tock|'Tock']] A guide to this user. 22:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)